[nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features
- From: "S. Massy" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:55:18 -0400
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:11:12PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote: > > What we might need: > > - I could have sworn show used to list tracks below the buss they belong > > to, but it doesn't seem to be the case. > > Yes, I wrote this before. There are two track listing > modes, numerical and by bus. I think by bus-listing kicks > in when there are a large number of tracks. > > It was horrible code, which means that's a good > reason to review it some time. Good to know I didn't make it up. :) cheers, S.M.
- References:
- [nama] Thoughts about Nama's organisational features
- From: S. Massy
- [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features
- From: Joel Roth
- [nama] Thoughts about Nama's organisational features
Other related posts:
- » [nama] Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - S. Massy
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - Julien Claassen
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - Joel Roth
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - S. Massy
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - S. Massy
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - Joel Roth
- » [nama] Re: Thoughts about Nama's organisational features - S. Massy